Professional Documents
Culture Documents
TM TT
Bi vit tp trung phn tich cc yu t, xy dng v kim inh m hinh cu truc tuyn tinh (SEM) v cc
yu t anh hng n hnh vi la chon v tiu dung tri cy cua ngi tiu dung nhm phn tich thc
trang tiu thu tri cy ni so vi tri cy nhp khu tai cc h thng siu thi tai Thnh ph H Chi
Minh. Cc yu t bao gm: Cht lng v cc c tinh cua san phm; Thng hiu; Gi bn san phm;
v hnh vi c nhn cua ngi tiu dung. Cc kt lun v gi y cc hng giai php cho vn cung
c cp trong bi vit ny.
Mt cu hi ln c t ra l: Thc s c s khc bit c y ngha trong hnh vi la chon v tiu dung
tri cy ni v ngoai cua ngi tiu dung tai cc siu thi tai Thnh ph H Chi Minh thng qua cc yu
t Cht lng v cc c tinh cua san phm; Thng hiu; Gi bn san phm; v Tm ly c nhn cua
ngi tiu dung hay khng? Nu c, s khc bit ny l g, c th o lng c hay khng?
lm r s khc bit ny, nhm nghin cu s dung bn yu t so snh v hnh vi cua ngi tiu
dung trong la chon v tiu dung tri cy i vi hai nhm san phm l tri cy ni v ngoai c by
bn cc siu thi tai Thnh ph H Chi Minh.
lm r s anh hng cua bn yu t trn n hnh vi la chon v tiu dung tri cy cua ngi tiu
dung, bi vit s dung m hnh cu trc tuyn tnh (SEM), thng qua kim inh CFA (phn tch nhn t
khng inh). D liu inh lng c thu thp t ngi mua v tiu dung tri cy tai cc siu thi tai
thnh ph H Chi Minh v c thc hin t thng 10 n thng 12 nm 2013 ( c Kha, 2013).
T khoa: Hnh vi la chon v v tiu dung; Cht lng v cc c tinh cua san phm; Thng hiu;
Gi bn san phm; m hinh SEM
ABSTRACT
This paper aims to answer whether there is a difference in the choice and consumption of domestic and
imported fruits at supermarkets in Ho Chi Minh city and if yes, whether it can be measured. To answer
these questions, we employ the structural equation model (SEM) with four variables, including product
quality and feature, brand, price, and personal behavior of consumers. The model is subsequently
checked using the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Data is obtained from surveys on the fruit
consumers in HCMCs supermarkets conducted from October to December, 2013. Conclusions and
suggestions are also offered in the paper.
Key words: Choice and consumer behavior; product quality and feature; brand; price; structural
equation model
Trang 50
Trang 51
Hnh 2. M hnh L thuyt nhn bit x hi trong hnh vi mua v tiu dng tri cy v rau qua
Ngun: Khairunnisa I.O & ctg, 2012
Trang 53
Trang 54
sang tra gia cao cho cac san phm thc phm
hu c t nhin (organic products), sau la
yu t v tnh tin li khi mua va cac yu t
khac nh hng vi, mau sc, kiu dang cua trai
cy.
2.5. Cc yu t thuc c im c nhn
S la chn va tiu dung trai cy cua ngi
tiu dung chiu tac ng bi nhiu yu t cua
mi trng va cac yu t ni ti hin hu trong
mi ca nhn. Mt s tac gia cho rng hanh vi
la chn va tiu dung trai cy, rau, thc phm
cua ngi tiu dung chiu tac ng mnh bi
cac yu t nh thu nhp, vn hoa giao dc va
ia vi, ng cp trong x hi (Johansson &
Andersen 1998; Mc Clelland et al. 1998). Cac
c im v nhn khu hc cng la cac yu t
tac ng n hanh vi la chn va tiu dung trai
cy. Ph n dung nhiu trai cy va rau hn nam
gii. Ngi trng thanh ln tui dung nhiu
hn gii tr (Thompson et al.1999).
i vi nhiu ngi, la chn va tiu dung
trai cy khng ch vi n cung cp cac gia tri
dinh dng hay sc kho cua h ma cn la
nim vui, kinh nghim v thng thc, s
khuy khoa, sung tuc, nim tin vao cht lng
va hng vi ngon cua trai cy (Brug et al.
1995).
Thi quen tiu dung trai cy la mt yu t
then cht dn n hanh vi la chn va tiu
dung trai cy. Thi quen c hinh thanh do
nhiu yu t kt hp, c lp li nhiu ln
trong qua kh cua ngi tiu dung (Khan,
1981; Brug et al. 1995; Bandura, 1997; Sallis
& Owen, 2002;). Thi quen bao gm kinh
nghim hc hi t qua kh hinh thanh thai
hng v la chn va tiu dung trai cy. Hn
na, thi quen cn din ta "s t th hin
minh", gp phn to nn phong cach sng cua
ca nhn. Theo Khan (1981), thi quen nay tr
thanh mt yu t mnh xac inh hanh vi la
Trang 57
Ma
Cht
lng
& c
tnh cua
trai cy
Cd1
Cd2
Cd3
Cd4
Cd5
Cd6
Cd7
Th1
Th2
Th3
Th4
Th5
Th6
Gb1
Gi bn xng ng vi cht
lng
Gb2
Thng
hiu trai
cy
Trang 58
Ngun
Gb3
Gb4
Gb5
Gb6
Tl1
Tl2
Tl3
Nim vui thich khi mua v tiu Zanoli et al. 2003; Ernst et al. 2006; Roger
dung tri cy
Harker, 2005.
Tl4
Tl5
Tl6
Hv1
Hv2
Hv3
Hv4
Gia ban
Cc yu
t thuc
c
im c
nhn
Hanh vi
la
chn va
tiu
dung
Bang 2. Kt qua kim inh s khc bit trong hanh vi la chn va tiu dung tri cy ngoai va ni
Trang 61
Bang 3. Kt qua kim inh KMO, Cronbach alpha v EFA cua thang o cc yu t
Trang 62
Hnh 3. Kt qua kim inh m hnh cc yu t anh hng n hanh vi la chn va tiu dung tri
cy cua ngi tiu dung
Gia tri chi-square cua m hinh la 587.68 vi
CR (Critical ratios) > 1.96. Gi tri hi t v
298 bc t do. Ch s CMIN/df l 1.97 < 2.0;
phn bit cua cc trng s hi quy chun
CFI l .983 >.90; TLI l .945 >.90; GFI l .928
SRWu >.50 v <1.0.
>.90; RMSEA l .037 <.05; ch s then cht
Bang 4. Kt qua kim inh cc yu t anh hng n hanh vi la chn va tiu dung tri cy
Trang 63
Trang 64
[2].
Aaker D.A. Building Strong Brands. The Free Press, New York, p.7-8 (1996).
[3].
Anderson, C., J., & Gerbing, D. Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A review and
recommended two-step approach, Psychological Bulletin, vol. 103, No.3, 311-423 (1988).
[4].
[5].
Ailawadi, K. L., Lehmann, D. R. and Neslin, S.A. Revenue premium as an outcome measure of
brand equity, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67 No. 4, pp. 1-17 (2003).
[6].
Amanda Christine Smith, Consumer reactions to organic food price premiums in the United
States, Graduate Theses and Dissertations, Iowa State University (2010).
[7].
[8].
Bagozzi, R., P. and Youjae Yi, "On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Models," Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 16 (1), 74-94 (1988).
[9].
[10]. Becker, Tilman, The economics of food quality standards. Proceedings of the Second (1999).
[11]. Interdisciplinary, Workshop on Standardization Research. University of the Federal Armed
Forces. Hamburg, May.
[12]. Berndt, R. Marketing Kuferverhalten, Marktforschung und Marketing-Prognosen, tome 1, 3rd
edn. Berlin: Springer (1996).
[13]. Bollen, K. A. Overall fit in covariance structure models: Two types of sample size effects,
Psychological Bulletin 107 (2): 256-259 (1990).
[14]. Browne, M., W. and Cudeck, R, Alternative ways of Assessing Model fit, in K.A Bollen & J.S
Long (Editors), Testing Structural Equation Models, Beverley Hill: Sage Publications (1993).
[15]. Brug J, Debie S, van Assema P & Weijts W Psychosocial determinants of fruit and vegetable
consumption among adults: results of focus group interviews. Food Quality and Preference 6,
99-107 (1995).
[16]. Caswell, Julie A., and Eliza M. Mojduszka, Using informational labeling to influence the market
for quality in food products. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 78:1248-1253 (1996).
[17]. Cattell, R. B. The Scientific Use of Factor Analysis. New York: Plenum (1978).
[18]. CHEN, KUNAG-JUNG: The Buying Behaviour and Marketing Practices of Fast Food Markets
in Metro Manila, Philippines. Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing, Vol.
8(2) (1996).
[19]. Churchill, Jr., G. A. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs, Journal
of Marketing Research, 26 (1): 64-73 (1979).
[20]. Crosby, L. A.; Evans, K. R.; & Cowles, D, Relationship quality in services selling: An
interpersonal influence per-spective, Journal of Marketing 54(3): 68-81 (1990).
[21]. Darby, Kim, Marvin T. Batte, Stan Ernst, and Brian Roe, Willingness to pay for locally produced
foods: A customer intercept study of direct market and grocery store shoppers. Paper Presented
at the American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Long Beach, California,
July (2006).
Trang 65
Trang 66
Trang 67
Trang 68